Report: Russia warns of ‘scandal’ in UN Syria vote

February 4, 2012

MOSCOW (JPOST) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned of a “scandal” if a Western-Arab drafted resolution comes to a vote on Saturday in the UN Security Council, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.
The remarks, which Itar-Tass said Lavrov made in an interview to be aired later on state-run Rossiya-1 television, suggest Russia would likely veto the resolution if its latest proposed amendments were not taken into account.
“If they want another scandal for themselves in the Security Council, then we probably cannot stop them,” Lavrov said, according to Itar-Tass. Rossiya-1 said the interview was recorded early on Saturday.
Lavrov said he hoped the draft would not come to a vote without changes “because our amendments to this draft are well-known.”

SCANDAL as a smokescreen


UN Security Council deadlocked on Palestinian bid

November 8, 2011
UNITED NATIONS (AFP)(EYE) — The UN Security Council is deadlocked on whether to accept or reject Palestine as a member of the United Nations, according to a draft report of a key committee obtained Tuesday.
“The committee was unable to make a unanimous recommendation to the Security Council,” said the report by the committee on admitting new UN members, adding to the troubles faced by the Palestinian application made by president Mahmud Abbas on September 23.(More…)

it should not be as close as it is

Caroline Glick: Israel Loses At the United Nations

September 23, 2011

I was starting to celebrate the fact that Obama was doing Israel’s bidding. That view was obviously limited and premature.

(One Jerusalem) Many friends of Israel are concluding that President Obama’s speech at the United Nations is a monumental victory for the State of Israel. Setting aside that Israel would not be facing a Palestinian State vote if President Obama did not call for the recognition of a Palestinian State last year at the UN, or if he would have backed legislation that would cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority if they went through with this stunt, the fact is Obama (at this point) has only delivered words. Even promising and castinga veto on the Security Council is not what Israel needs at this time. As Caroline Glick argues, Israel needs a quick veto but for that to happen the United States must demand a quick vote at the Security Council. At this point it looks like this will be a long drawn out deliberation which will play into the hands of the Palestinians. Caroline Glick writes

From Israel’s perspective, the best possible outcome of the current standoff at the U.N. is for the Palestinians to present their resolution for statehood to the Security Council and for the U.S. to immediately veto it. Such a move would provide closure to this particular round of anti-Israel aggression. But it certainly wouldn’t end the danger. The Palestinians can renew their request as often as they please. And given the sympathetic — indeed enthusiastic — reception they have received at the U.N., there is little reason to doubt that they will do so.
The worse scenario from Israel’s perspective is quickly becoming the more likely one. That scenario is that the Security Council will not bring the Palestinian-statehood resolution to an immediate vote but will instead delay voting on it for an indeterminate period. During that period, the U.S. and the EU will exert massive pressure on Israel to capitulate to whatever Palestinian preconditions for renewing negotiations are on hand.
Israel will face the prospect that if it fails to surrender to all the Palestinian demands, the U.N. will retaliate by passing the Palestinian-statehood resolution. At a minimum, Israel will find itself under a constant barrage of criticism blaming it for the Palestinian decision to abandon the peace process and ask the U.N. to grant them what they refuse to negotiate with Israel.
All of this could have been averted or at least mitigated if the Obama administration had behaved differently. If the White House had announced at an early date that it would automatically veto any resolution calling for Palestinian U.N. membership and would end all U.S. financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority if it went through with its stated aim of applying for U.N. membership as a state, the Palestinians would likely have set aside their plans. But still today President Obama has refused to take any punitive action against the PA and, according to the New York Times, forced Israel to lobby Congress not to cut off foreign aid to the PA.
(image – a Jew hate site)

UNSC recommendation needed for Palestinian state

May 27, 2011
The president of the UN General Assembly said Friday there is no way that a Palestinian state could become a member of the United Nations without a recommendation from the Security Council.

Joseph Deiss told a news conference that if the United States or any other permanent council member used its veto, the General Assembly would not be able to vote on membership for Palestine.  AP via

@ The United Nations
The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.
Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the [United Nations Charter] and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The procedure is briefly as follows: 
1.   The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter. 
2.   The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application. 
3.    If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State. 

      4.      Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

Resolution 242

May 19, 2011

If the 1949 Armistice Line was not a recognized international border,

Then_why_is Clinton saying,”we believe that the 1967 borders,with swaps, should be the focus of the negotiations over borders.”

…but the 1949 Armistice Line never was a border. Jordan repeatedly clarified this through history. Example days before the Six-Day War Jordan clarified that for any claiming parties the the old armistice agreement “did not fix boundaries”.Article II of the 1949 Armistice Agreement with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties, since it had been “dictated by exclusively by military considerations.  Even the “famous” UN Resolution 242 which was passed by the UN Security Council five months after the Six-Day War recognized that the 1949 Armistice line was not supposed to designate final Israeli borders.
At the UN General Assembly in September 2009, Obama used in his address the road-map phrase of “ending the occupation that began in 1967,” but he did not refer to Resolution 242 as his predecessors did.

Over the last decade, Israel has made repeated mistakes in allowing the restoration of the 1967 lines and the downgrading of Resolution 242. It should have fought harder over the language of the Road Map back in 2003. Israel’s right to defensible borders, that must replace the 1967 lines, has a strong foundation in international law and in the past policies of the UN Security Council.

Arab declarations about destroying Israel were made preceding the war when control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (or Sinai and the Golan Heights) were not in Israel’s hands, and no so-called Israeli occupation existed.
That is why the UN Security Council recognized that Israel had acquired the territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria not as a matter of aggression, but as an act of self-defense. That is also why was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter rather than Chapter VII. As explained above, UN resolutions adopted under Chapter VI call on nations to negotiate settlements, while resolutions under the more stringent Chapter VII section deal with clear acts of aggression that allow the UN to enforce its resolutions upon any state seen as threatening the security of another state or states.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, has concurred, further clarifying:

Franz Stone with Julius Stone
Julius Stone via

“Territorial Rights Under International Law. … By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.”(11)

If the West Bank and Gaza were indeed occupied territory
– belonging to someone else and unjustly seized by force – there could be no grounds for negotiating new borders.

Lord Caradon

President Lyndon Johnson made this very point in September 1968: “It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.” It is for this reason that Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal from all the territories that Israel captured in the Six Day War; the 1949 Armistice lines were no longer to be a reference point for a future peace process.

Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the UN admitted at the time: “I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where the troops had to stop.” He concluded: “it is not a permanent border.”

Arthur Goldberg

His U.S. counterpart, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, added that “historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area”; he then added that the armistice lines did not answer that description.

Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
“… the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution.” (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)

Even the Soviet
delegate to the U.N.,
Vasili Kuznetsov

who fought against
the final text,

conceded that
the resolution

gave Israel
the right to

“withdraw its
forces only

to those lines
it considers

Danny Ayalon

Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

“To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries … would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description… such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absoute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal isS/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67

Michael Stewart, (Great Britain) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

“Question: “What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?”

Mr. Stewart: “No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.”

George Brown

George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on January 19, 1970:

“I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. “I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” (The Jerusalem Post, January 3 1970)

Joseph J. Sisco via

Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC “Meet the Press”):

“That Resolution did not say ‘withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines’. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties.”

Eugene V. Rostow,
Professor of Law and Public Affairs

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs 

, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

“… Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

Geraldo de Carvalho Silos via

Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian UN representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

“We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.” (S/PV. 1382, p. 66,22.11.67 ).

So this is what adults, from both political parties, have had to say about UN 242, and pulling back to 1967 borders. 

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled the first time he heard someone invoke “the sacramental language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, mumbling about the need for a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders”. He said the phrase was so platitudinous that he thought the speaker was pulling his leg. Kissinger said that, at that time, he did not appreciate how the flood of words used to justify the various demands obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. Kissinger said those “clashing perspectives” prevented any real bargaining and explained: “Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations

Arthur Goldberg

Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank of Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem.”
However, speaking to Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon said “You and I both know they can’t go back to the other [1967] borders. But we must not, on the other hand, say that because the Israelis win this war, as they won the ’67 War, that we just go on with status quo. It can’t be done.” Kissinger replied “I couldn’t agree more”
Moreover, President Gerald Ford said: “The U.S. further supports the position that a just and lasting peace, which remains our objective, must be acceptable to both sides

Of all the Presidents, Gerald Ford said it best: it must be acceptable to both sides.  Trying to jam a dead UN Agreement down the throats of Israel, sets the stage for another blood bath. via Bob Schneider

President Bush made clear in his 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949”.
The Bush letter was approved by massive bipartisan majorities in both houses of the US Congress. 

the Obama administration has avoided stating that it is legally bound by the contents of the letter. This came out in a long exchange between a Fox News reporter and the State Department’s Deputy Spokesman, Robert Wood, on June 1, 2009.

At the UN General Assembly in September 2009, Obama used in his address the road-map phrase of “ending the occupation that began in 1967,” but he did not refer to Resolution 242 as his predecessors did.

the truth about Resolution 194

[Count Bernadotte‘s]  report also considered the possibility of resettlement outside Palestine, with those who chose not to return being adequately compensated for their lost property. “It must not… be supposed that the establishment of the right of refugees to return to their former homes provides a solution to the problem” the report read.

U.S. and Allies Seek a Refuge for Qaddafi

April 17, 2011
…wait…. if the U.K. freed the terrorist who blew up Pan Am Flight 103… it would seem that we also need to arrest some U.K. citizens. Are we going to really hold third world dictators accountable? How about Mubarak for the crimes he did against Israel in the war before the PIECE Agreement? Why the double standard?

The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.

The intense search for a country to accept Colonel Qaddafi has been conducted quietly by the United States and its allies, even though the Libyan leader has shown defiance in recent days, declaring that he has no intention of yielding to demands that he leave his country, and intensifying his bombardment of the rebel city of Misurata.
The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.
The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr. Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized military strikes to protect the Libyan population, but not to oust the leadership. But Mr. Obama and the leaders of Britain and France, among others, have declared that to be their goals, apart from the military campaign.
“We learned some lessons from Iraq, and one of the biggest is that Libyans have to be responsible for regime change, not us,” one senior administration official said on Saturday. “What we’re simply trying to do is find some peaceful way to organize an exit, if the opportunity arises.”

About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.) Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini, suggested late last month that several African countries could offer Colonel Qaddafi a haven, but he did not identify them.


here is to friendship in Africa

Netanyahu: Israel ‘deeply appreciates’ Obama’s veto on UN resolution condemning settlements

February 22, 2011


Is all this illegitimate? Of course not—not according to that earlier Security Council Resolution, 242 of 1967, which sets the basis for Arab-Israeli diplomatic processes and never mentions settlements; nor according to the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, which leave settlements as an issue for final-status negotiations and in no way proscribe them.
Nor were settlements illegitimate according to Eugene V. Rostow, the late legal scholar who helped draft Resolution 242 and, in 1991, asserted in the New Republic that Israel’s right to settle the West Bank is “unassailable” and that “the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa.” Nor according to Stephen M. Schwebel, the international-law expert who wrote in 1970 that

As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem….

And what of the implications of the U.S. secretary of state publicly branding communities comprising half a million people as “illegitimate”? They’re clearly very negative, at a time when Israel is subject to a worldwide delegitimization campaign that seeks to drum home big lies about it being a “rogue,” “apartheid” state that consistently flouts international law and deserves “BDS” (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) if not violent attack.

Israel said it was deeply grateful to the United States on Saturday after it vetoed a United Nations resolution put forward by the Palestinian leadership condemning Israeli settlement activity. “Israel deeply appreciates the decision by President Obama to veto the Security Council Resolution”, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.
“Israel deeply appreciates the decision by President Obama to veto the Security Council Resolution today.
Israel remains committed to pursuing comprehensive peace with all our neighbors, including the Palestinians.
We seek a solution that will reconcile the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations for statehood with Israel’s need for security and recognition.
Today’s decision by the U.S. makes it clear that the only path to such a peace will come through direct negotiations and not through the decisions of international bodies.
We are prepared to pursue those peace negotiations vigorously and are eager to get on with the work of achieving a secure peace. We hope the Palestinians will join us in that effort as soon as possible”.
Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | 1967 borders, 242, Apartheid, BDS, Bibi, Hitlery, HitleryClinton, international law, Netanyahu, Settlements, Stephen M. Schwebel, U.N. Security Council, UN Security Council, United Nations | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon